Tuesday, April 28, 2009

So yes, what you are all thinking is correct, this comic is just a poor shadow of the youtube one. The difference being that youtube is actually full of the dumbest people you will ever see, and twitter has that but also has smart people. When it comes to diseases and stuff, this new superfast communication can actually have some really interesting effects- as I recall, Google was able to track the spread of a more common flu a few months ago by seeing where people were searching for certain symptoms, and that actually traced the illness faster than the CDC could do it. ANYWAY that's what I thought this comic would be about, in the grand "i am xkcd and I have discovered something NEW to show you!" tradition, but I was wrong.

What we have, of course, is just "Hur hurrr, inter-net peepol R dum peepel", exactly like we had in YouTube Comic. And this was done on purpose! That is to say, Randy knew he was referencing it, because he included user "crackmonkey74" on both.

And that is actually where it gets weird: In addition to just putting dumb internet quotes out there, he made a lot of the users...other webcomic people. I didn't recognize them all, but from what I can tell, apparently Jeffrey Rowland is suggesting that Joey Comeau has been up to some type of pig fuckin' antics.

I'm not sure what the point of those references is - is he actually trying to say that those people are writing those things? I suspect not. Is he just trying to reference them so they link to him? Mission accomplished, I'm afraid. Is he just trying to make his readers who recognize the names think that this is the greatest comic ever? Probably. Does he end up making a much more confused joke than he intended? Yes!

long story short: References can be funny, but they have to mean something. Also be accurate, Jeffrey Rowland does not talk like that. He is much angrier and spells things wrong and makes up words. Here is a hint: if you can just replace the name of the person ("wigu") with any other name and have it still make sense, congratulations! you are being too vague in your reference!

And as long as we are discussing Overcompensating, I am happy to say that I am within 10 months of catching up to the present in the overcompensating archives! Guys: I have never been happier. this is a great comic. just beware: whenever he mentions his spider bite, do not click the link! his spider bite is so gross!

Oh also randy: if jeffrey rowland really loved you, your shirts would be on sale at his store, like all the good webcomics.

update: Jay, if you don't e-mail me, I can't tell you the secret for how to be a guest poster! Then Rob will have to guest post and we all know that no one wants that to happen.

He's not the only one who came to this conclusion, I've read several news articles the the past week saying the same... so you appear to be in the minority in thinking that twitter (aka unwashed masses + podium) + scary even = anything good. If you look, it really is 99% scared people passing on rumor and fear.

I didn't hate it with the degree of passion some of you are showing. Yeah, it looked similar to the youtube one, but it was still funny - well, kind of. I didn't laugh - until the last comment about licking autistic children. While you'll probably think it was sick, it really wasn't, and actually made me laugh. For the first time in a long time, I haven't said "oh, that's funny" while reading XKCD, but i've actually laughed. I even laughed an hour later recollecting it.

To be honest, the other ones were just awful, even if they are references. This comic could have been made a thousand times better by cutting it down to the last "tweet," I think they're called (not a twitter user here). It would have been short, but i'm sure something could have been worked into it -

As long as that something wasn't one of the horrifying captions that explained the comic for you.

Also: Alt Text. What the hell? Ohh, man, you're so funny because you can tell teenagers to drink lots of alcohol, and pretend they have a reason for it! Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk.

Coincidence of the week: I've been singing Come On Eileen all week (due to Ashes to Ashes). Trivium of the week: in the UK, Dexy's Midnight Runners weren't one-hit wonders, having done quite well with their previous album Geno. Other thing: Come On Eileen was best-selling single of the year 1983. (Never Gonna Give You Up was '79.)

Wow, seriously. You have the time to critique a web comic that's drawn with stick figures? If you're the unsung genius of web comic comedy why not prove it instead of whining about someone else? Oh but that would require *talent*, wouldn't it?

I'm going to start "'xkcd sucks' sucks" and blog about how terrible each of your posts are. No, on second thoughts, I have a life.

"Don't like it, don't read it" -- right, because it's so EASY to ignore xkcd. It doesn't get linked or referenced on every web forum and social networking site on earth, or anything like that. My coworkers don't print it out and stick it on EVERYTHING.

Aloria is correct: XKCD is super-hard to ignore. But it is worth trying.

Since I stopped reading both XKCD and this blog a while ago, my mood has brightened considerably, I'm more calm, relaxed, and I'll not wake up of a night screaming bloody murder... not reading XKCD has increased my lifespan.

The reason I came back was because someone posted the swine flu comic on a forum I frequent, and once I'd stopped vomiting up blood this felt like the only option to take. Denied the usual catharsis of making stupid comments on this blog, I can't bear to see another forum post proclaiming, often in ALLCAPS, 'Check out this comic which mentions the current event we are discussing, it is full of lulz and awesome and epic and win!' and then a picture of some stick-figures talking. It's just not good Internet.

That said, there is something in that plaintive cry of the cuddlefish, 'don't like it, don't read it'. They have a point. I would recommend this shocking new treatment to all xkcdsucks commenters!

DoubleBlackbird: yep, I sure do love the "holy crap this forum topic is remotely related to a xkcd I saw once... let me post it in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that someone on here has not yet read it! I surely will be commended for my sharp humor-by-proxy."

"The reason I came back was because someone posted the swine flu comic on a forum I frequent, and once I'd stopped vomiting up blood this felt like the only option to take."

See, I would have been less "I'm going on the Internet to register my disgust!" and more "I'm going to the doctors to register myself as a swine flu casualty!". Admittedly I'm not sure if vomiting blood is a symptom, but hey.

This site would be funny if it were Randall Munroe's. Probably is. Other than that, pretty lame. Only an idiot (Munroe excepted) would waste his or her time on such a pointless exercise. Guess I'm an idiot for wasting my time here.

I am pretty sure that if Randall wanted to do xkcd merch out of Topatoco he could, but xkcd is so popular that he probably makes more money doing it independently.

I'm in agreement with some of your criticisms, but when you start picking on how Randall Munroe poorly personifies Jeff Rowland's twitter personality, I think you're reaching further than any xkcd comic.

I can't count the number of times I've gone on an XKCD archive binge and just woken up hours later, groggy, dazed, covered in blood... ripped shirt... police bullet in my arm... uh guys I think I might have done something terrible

And uh, John Solomon's bingo sheet of shit criticisms.This comment section is just one "Carl is a coward" away from bingo. Woo! I'm beginning to have doubts about this "Anonymous" person and their dedication to making quality posts.

Found today's comic through a QC link. I don't know why Jeph even links the comic to be honest. Maybe so he gets linked in return? To see xkcd's "better" days? Maybe scared of his wrath at a webcomic con.

Funny though, this blog is making me analyze the -shit- out of other comics I read, CAD being one of them. What would have used to make me laugh hollowly now makes me go "Oh, ethan's being stupid again" or "Oh, they would rather play [x] than take a large amount of physical pain."

Jeph Jacques links to XKCD for the same reason you might link to your friend's story or blog or webcomic--it may not actually be the greatest thing ever but you're friends so you think it's cool and/or worth doing.

thanks for finally opening my eyes, oldav! i can't believe you were the only one willing to be honest with me. Everyone else: I hate you. only Oldav here is my true friend. Only he cares about me, and wants what's best for me.

I already am better than Randall Munroe. I am more clever, more concise, more talented, more attractive, and less useless. Until you present solid evidence that I am none of these things, you have no right to tell me that I have no right to complain until I am better than Randall Munroe.

What makes this comic particularly awful in my view is that Randall is essentially taking the legitimate (if often misguided) fears of millions of people, exaggerating their stupidity beyond the point of believability, and then laughing at them. Sure, the comments in the comic are (for the most part) ridiculous, and yeah, there are definitely some astoundingly stupid people on the internet (ever seen Yahoo! Answers?) But I actually performed this search on Twitter right after the comic went up, and you know what? Just like in most situations, the majority of people aren't actually nutjobs. Most people are worried about the same things the WHO and the CDC are.

So what's really the moral here? Yeah, let's all laugh at these stupid people who think the swine flu is a bigger deal than it is. They think that it's going to kill them, when in fact we're really not sure how many people it's going to kill. I mean, yes, there's misinformation out there, and yes, there are many people who react to this misinformation publicly before looking into the facts. But honestly, I think that Randall's just going to look like a dick if the swine flu does turn into a worldwide pandemic. Would you want to have been the guy who made fun of people in New Orleans for asking panicked questions about Hurricane Katrina before the fact, even if the questions were legitimately inane? Is it going to be funny that there was premature overreaction on Twitter if it turns out that, hey, swine flu actually was a big deal?

Even in the best-case scenario, this just feels like a smug, condescending comic that's taking down a whole string of straw men without any regrets.

Ugh, the worst part about the smug mocking of the swine flu thing is that, if we actually take preventative measures and those measures are what prevent it from doing any damage they'll all be like "see I told you it was nothing to worry about" and you won't ever be able to prove that it would have been worse without medical technology.

It's like when you take allergy medication and it works so well you can't even tell you have allergies. Then you skip a dose and the next day you are on fire.

But yeah, by my count Randy referenced at least three other webcomic people, and I'm not really sure what he's going for. This is probably just me being anti-Randy, it seems like he maybe just did it for the links it generated? I mean, I didn't see Joey Comeau mention it, but Jeph Jacques and Jeffrey Rowland both mentioned it (on Twitter, maybe on their websites, I don't remember). It's not making it any more funny for me that I know the people he referenced; if you don't know them it's meaningless. I can only see him doing something like this in the hopes of getting some linkage happening, or something.

A few more problems here. First, with the guy who liked the autism joke: if you're a Twitter person this probably didn't hit you as a Final Punchline because you read Twitter from the bottom up--most recent tweets first.

Second, a lot of these are kind of obviously jokes. "I broke my arm, is this swine flu?" This sounds more like someone making fun of the phenomenon that Randy is trying to make fun of. Similar with the Jeffrey Rowland/Joey Comeau conversation--that isn't an uninformed panic, that is, if it were really happening, a joking response to an off-screen joke Joey Comeau made. In both of these, the humor is kind of off-camera and meta at best.

Third, the "reaches me in Madagascar" thing: this joke was making the rounds well before the comic was posted. This would normally have been kind of funny, but I'd already seen it--from a source that doesn't normally post memes, I might add. I laughed then. This is just Randy hijacking a referential meme. Again, not funny.

Fourth, the Hannelore tweet is a reference to a character who is germophobic. This doesn't add to the "haha, Twitter is dumb" hysteria.

Fifth, Crackmonkey74 is too obviously a parody of crazed religious wingnuts. Even if it were totally legit, it wouldn't be uninformed panic so much as hateful and stupid religious diatribe. Ignorant/uninformed is the wrong term here.

The only legitimately "uninformed" comment is "I ate bacon before I knew about swine flu." And that's not even a terribly stupid comment--it's an easy link to make. Most people don't know much about epidemiology. I doubt they even know the mechanisms by which normal flu spreads.

Alright: first post here, though I've been reading for a few weeks now. Never really felt like it was worth it before, either because I agreed with Carl or because my disagreements were small enough that they didn't feel worth trying to put into words. But there have just been way too many xkcd bitches cluttering up the comments today for me to let it slide, so here goes:

All of you Anonymous haters, you are COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT. There are tons of terrible webcomics out there, and if xkcd were any one of them you would be right. If I started a blog dissing on Stick Figure Mania (anyone want to check if that's a real thing?), then yes, it WOULD be a complete waste of time, because no one cares. But xkcd isn't just another crappy webcomic. It's a crappy webcomic which has, for some reason, received fame and attention way beyond anything it deserves. Beyond, even, the fame deserved (or received) by MUCH BETTER COMICS. I'm a little disappointed, actually, that the blog's title has been changed from the previous "XKCD: Overrated", because I think that pretty much summed up why we feel so strongly about it. We see xkcd everywhere. We hear about it from everyone. And we are freaking tired of it. So we vent our frustration by reading the often-more-angry rantings of dear Carl, and that keeps us from murdering you sheep who wouldn't know a good comic if it stabbed you in the face.

Taking a step back, I'd like to say that XKCD has its moments; perhaps even that Randall is a talented, clever, creative person. I'd like to say that. But you know what's stopping me? His own insistence on misapplying statistics to everything. Because statistically, he is none of these things. The vast majority of his comics do nothing more than reference memes, or even reference previous comics, so that tosses cleverness and creativity out the window. As for talented... I'm a little uncomfortable rejecting the validity of stick-figure art, because if I were to do a comic it would likely be in that style. Still, given how long he's been doing it, and how he only updates three times a week, you'd think he could do a little more with them. Maybe make them identifiable? Give us some characters that we could actually be interested in? But now I'm straying into territory that Carl has previously covered...

Which brings me to my final point: reasons why Cuddlefish propaganda is retarded. Firstly, the claim that Carl just criticizes little things that don't matter at all to the comic. While I do think he tends to focus a little much on the whole floating-over-chairs thing (because honestly, I think it would look even weirder if they were connected to the chair), he doesn't really have a choice. He's covered all the main criticisms already: XKCD is more recognized than it deserves; it is repetitive; it spends way too much time referencing memes that even the general public thinks are out of date; it is often very, VERY creepy when it comes to relationships - or at least really depressing. The thing is, once you lay out these criticisms, you realize there's not much left to say. The comic is just too damn repetitive. And yet it's still huge, which means that we're still all irritated by it, so Carl has to post something. So he does what a good critic does: he picks it apart. He ignores those problems with the comic that we all take for granted, and instead analyzes the sad remainder. And what makes it truly pathetic is that even ignoring those huge, overarching issues, Carl is STILL able to find things wrong with the comic.

Secondly: the way-overused argument "I'd like to see you do better" is too stupid to discuss. I'm serious. I refuse to say anything further about it except that anyone who feels that way does not understand what a critic does.

Man, I hate for my first post to be so angry. But I guess I probably never would have gotten around to posting otherwise. I am an internet Hulk. I'm prepared to admit that I'm being a little unfair; after all, there have been several truly genius xkcds. The "ass-car" one is still one of my favorites, and I automatically make that switch in my head whenever I hear the phrase. I also have been feeling more angry about the comic lately than usual; it might have been the Hannelore Twitter thing, which I now realize is unjustified if it really was Randall's idea first (but why, then, did Jeph ruin the joke like that? Maybe he's being passive-aggressive about Randall's sucky comic being more famous). Alternatively, it might just be that my life sucks right now. Either way, I will concede that I may be being too harsh. The general ideas behind each of my comments stand, however, even if they should be presented in less stark terms. And I'm sorry that this post was so ridiculously long.

Mostly I agree and would like to promote you to God, but one thing: I think "I'd like to see you do better" is actually so stupid it does merit comment! It has crossed the threshold. While any given critic is not necessarily claiming they could do better, in this case I am pretty sure most of the regulars could--because XKCD lately is really just made of suck, partly, but also because some of us are also writers or people who make jokes or even sometimes cartoonists. And while I don't maintain a website for my jokes (except maybe for Twitter?) I do have a morose self-absorbed fiction blog, and I am definitely much better at morose and self-absorbed than Randall's attempts, especially lately.

Now, do I think I am, specifically, a better cartoonist than Randy? Yes, obviously, Randy is kind of terrible and a sack of bricks is a better cartoonist than Randy. But do I think I could make a good webcomic? Yes. Yes I do. So far I have yet to find an artist to work with. It would actually be a fun project, though the trick is finding someone else who would be devoted to the project.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA. Last time I checked this was "xkcdsucks", not "delusionsofgrandeur.net". Don't go "oh, I'm so awesome me", go "oh, randy's so not awesome him". If we've already established - nay, the point of the blog is "i think stuff other people enjoy sucks", you can't then go "this is stuff other people will enjoy", because that will make it SUCK.

@Rob: First of all, if that promotion goes through I promise that my first act will be to delete xkcd from existence. Second would be giving myself laser eyes. Solving all the world's problems would be fourth of fifth.

Secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that no one here is better than Randy at writing/drawing/humor. I just meant that it's irrelevant, because critiquing (man that word does not look right) is about judging the merits of a work as compared to other works in the field, not as compared to your own. Seems like a lot of us have read other webcomics, and that is part of why we all understand how overrated xkcd really is.

That said, I have very little trouble believing that many of the commenters here are writers or artists who could, in fact, make a better comic.

fux you Ann Apolis. I am utterly brilliant and will not have some peon complaining about how I am talking about my effortless brilliance. I WILL HAVE NONE OF IT. If you have a problem with people being brilliant I SUGGEST YOU KILL YOURSELF STRAIGHTAWAY BECAUSE I WILL NEVER STOP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES so it is pretty much not worth your time.

sometimes carlsometimes i wonder if maybe i've gone too fari wonder if my burns are too sharptoo severetoo burnywhat have i become?am i a monster?have i turned on those who love medestroyed them byinserting the word 'sux' into their namein an exceedingly clever wayor have ijust written a shitty poem?DOWN WITH ROBDOWN WITH ROBDOWN WITH

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.